Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 431	control, N = 211	treatment, N = 221	p-value2
age	43	50.98 ± 12.72 (25 - 72)	50.32 ± 12.92 (25 - 72)	51.60 ± 12.79 (32 - 72)	0.747
gender	43				0.449
f		29 (67%)	13 (62%)	16 (73%)
m		14 (33%)	8 (38%)	6 (27%)
occupation	43				0.978
full_time		5 (12%)	3 (14%)	2 (9.1%)
homemaker		2 (4.7%)	1 (4.8%)	1 (4.5%)
other		2 (4.7%)	0 (0%)	2 (9.1%)
part_time		7 (16%)	4 (19%)	3 (14%)
retired		13 (30%)	6 (29%)	7 (32%)
self_employ		2 (4.7%)	1 (4.8%)	1 (4.5%)
t_and_e		2 (4.7%)	1 (4.8%)	1 (4.5%)
unemploy		10 (23%)	5 (24%)	5 (23%)
marital	43				0.892
divore		5 (12%)	3 (14%)	2 (9.1%)
married		8 (19%)	3 (14%)	5 (23%)
none		24 (56%)	12 (57%)	12 (55%)
seperation		3 (7.0%)	2 (9.5%)	1 (4.5%)
widow		3 (7.0%)	1 (4.8%)	2 (9.1%)
edu	43				0.399
bachelor		13 (30%)	5 (24%)	8 (36%)
diploma		7 (16%)	5 (24%)	2 (9.1%)
hd_ad		2 (4.7%)	1 (4.8%)	1 (4.5%)
postgraduate		4 (9.3%)	2 (9.5%)	2 (9.1%)
primary		4 (9.3%)	1 (4.8%)	3 (14%)
secondary_1_3		2 (4.7%)	0 (0%)	2 (9.1%)
secondary_4_5		10 (23%)	7 (33%)	3 (14%)
secondary_6_7		1 (2.3%)	0 (0%)	1 (4.5%)
fam_income	43				0.881
10001_12000		3 (7.0%)	1 (4.8%)	2 (9.1%)
12001_14000		1 (2.3%)	1 (4.8%)	0 (0%)
14001_16000		4 (9.3%)	1 (4.8%)	3 (14%)
16001_18000		2 (4.7%)	1 (4.8%)	1 (4.5%)
18001_20000		1 (2.3%)	1 (4.8%)	0 (0%)
20001_above		9 (21%)	6 (29%)	3 (14%)
2001_4000		5 (12%)	2 (9.5%)	3 (14%)
4001_6000		6 (14%)	3 (14%)	3 (14%)
6001_8000		5 (12%)	3 (14%)	2 (9.1%)
8001_10000		3 (7.0%)	1 (4.8%)	2 (9.1%)
below_2000		4 (9.3%)	1 (4.8%)	3 (14%)
medication	43	37 (86%)	17 (81%)	20 (91%)	0.412
onset_duration	43	16.62 ± 12.51 (0 - 56)	17.90 ± 14.48 (1 - 56)	15.40 ± 10.48 (0 - 35)	0.519
onset_age	43	34.36 ± 12.65 (15 - 62)	32.43 ± 11.43 (16 - 55)	36.20 ± 13.73 (15 - 62)	0.334
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 431	control, N = 211	treatment, N = 221	p-value2
recovery_stage_a	43	3.44 ± 1.26 (1 - 5)	3.38 ± 1.32 (1 - 5)	3.50 ± 1.22 (1 - 5)	0.761
recovery_stage_b	43	18.40 ± 2.67 (9 - 23)	18.43 ± 2.93 (9 - 23)	18.36 ± 2.48 (14 - 23)	0.938
ras_confidence	43	30.70 ± 4.78 (19 - 40)	30.24 ± 4.56 (19 - 40)	31.14 ± 5.05 (22 - 39)	0.545
ras_willingness	43	12.30 ± 2.05 (7 - 15)	12.29 ± 1.82 (9 - 15)	12.32 ± 2.30 (7 - 15)	0.959
ras_goal	43	17.67 ± 3.08 (12 - 24)	17.57 ± 3.09 (12 - 23)	17.77 ± 3.13 (12 - 24)	0.833
ras_reliance	43	13.44 ± 3.11 (8 - 20)	13.24 ± 2.81 (8 - 18)	13.64 ± 3.43 (8 - 20)	0.680
ras_domination	43	10.16 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)	10.95 ± 1.72 (8 - 15)	9.41 ± 2.79 (3 - 14)	0.036
symptom	43	29.67 ± 10.20 (14 - 56)	28.86 ± 8.62 (14 - 45)	30.45 ± 11.66 (15 - 56)	0.614
slof_work	43	22.98 ± 5.03 (10 - 30)	23.43 ± 4.79 (15 - 30)	22.55 ± 5.32 (10 - 30)	0.571
slof_relationship	43	26.33 ± 5.81 (11 - 35)	26.95 ± 5.89 (15 - 35)	25.73 ± 5.82 (11 - 35)	0.496
satisfaction	43	21.23 ± 6.88 (5 - 30)	19.86 ± 6.71 (5 - 29)	22.55 ± 6.93 (5 - 30)	0.204
mhc_emotional	43	11.58 ± 3.55 (4 - 18)	11.14 ± 2.97 (6 - 17)	12.00 ± 4.05 (4 - 18)	0.435
mhc_social	43	14.93 ± 4.80 (6 - 25)	15.19 ± 4.55 (8 - 25)	14.68 ± 5.13 (6 - 23)	0.733
mhc_psychological	43	22.28 ± 6.22 (6 - 36)	21.57 ± 6.18 (10 - 33)	22.95 ± 6.33 (6 - 36)	0.473
resilisnce	43	16.95 ± 4.71 (6 - 25)	16.86 ± 4.45 (6 - 24)	17.05 ± 5.04 (7 - 25)	0.897
social_provision	43	13.67 ± 3.29 (5 - 20)	13.43 ± 2.96 (8 - 20)	13.91 ± 3.64 (5 - 19)	0.638
els_value_living	43	17.14 ± 3.04 (5 - 23)	16.86 ± 2.17 (12 - 20)	17.41 ± 3.71 (5 - 23)	0.558
els_life_fulfill	43	13.07 ± 3.38 (4 - 18)	12.19 ± 3.37 (5 - 17)	13.91 ± 3.25 (4 - 18)	0.096
els	43	30.21 ± 5.78 (9 - 40)	29.05 ± 4.68 (20 - 36)	31.32 ± 6.57 (9 - 40)	0.201
social_connect	43	26.84 ± 10.18 (8 - 48)	27.05 ± 9.29 (8 - 45)	26.64 ± 11.18 (8 - 48)	0.897
shs_agency	43	14.19 ± 4.82 (3 - 20)	13.71 ± 4.43 (3 - 20)	14.64 ± 5.23 (3 - 20)	0.537
shs_pathway	43	16.70 ± 3.73 (4 - 22)	16.19 ± 3.23 (9 - 21)	17.18 ± 4.16 (4 - 22)	0.390
shs	43	30.88 ± 7.90 (7 - 42)	29.90 ± 7.22 (16 - 41)	31.82 ± 8.56 (7 - 42)	0.434
esteem	43	12.49 ± 1.24 (10 - 15)	12.67 ± 1.06 (10 - 14)	12.32 ± 1.39 (10 - 15)	0.364
mlq_search	43	15.21 ± 3.38 (3 - 21)	15.19 ± 3.31 (6 - 21)	15.23 ± 3.53 (3 - 20)	0.972
mlq_presence	43	13.67 ± 4.04 (3 - 21)	14.14 ± 2.99 (6 - 19)	13.23 ± 4.87 (3 - 21)	0.464
mlq	43	28.88 ± 6.77 (6 - 41)	29.33 ± 6.12 (12 - 40)	28.45 ± 7.45 (6 - 41)	0.676
empower	43	19.95 ± 4.33 (6 - 28)	20.10 ± 3.67 (11 - 24)	19.82 ± 4.96 (6 - 28)	0.837
ismi_resistance	43	14.93 ± 2.77 (5 - 20)	14.95 ± 2.16 (12 - 19)	14.91 ± 3.31 (5 - 20)	0.960
ismi_discrimation	43	11.19 ± 3.16 (5 - 19)	12.00 ± 3.00 (5 - 17)	10.41 ± 3.19 (5 - 19)	0.100
sss_affective	43	9.49 ± 4.28 (3 - 18)	9.95 ± 3.46 (3 - 15)	9.05 ± 4.98 (3 - 18)	0.494
sss_behavior	43	9.49 ± 4.45 (3 - 18)	10.19 ± 4.24 (3 - 18)	8.82 ± 4.64 (3 - 18)	0.318
sss_cognitive	43	7.77 ± 4.01 (3 - 18)	7.48 ± 3.63 (3 - 15)	8.05 ± 4.41 (3 - 18)	0.647
sss	43	26.74 ± 11.84 (9 - 54)	27.62 ± 9.89 (9 - 44)	25.91 ± 13.63 (9 - 54)	0.642
1Mean ± SD (Range)
2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group	Characteristic	Beta	SE1	95% CI1	p-value
recovery_stage_a	(Intercept)	3.38	0.263	2.87, 3.90
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.119	0.368	-0.602, 0.840	0.748
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.779	0.551	-0.301, 1.86	0.170
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.293	0.852	-1.96, 1.38	0.734
	Pseudo R square	0.046
recovery_stage_b	(Intercept)	18.4	0.587	17.3, 19.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.065	0.820	-1.67, 1.54	0.937
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.624	0.553	-1.71, 0.461	0.292
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.842	0.873	-0.869, 2.55	0.362
	Pseudo R square	0.006
ras_confidence	(Intercept)	30.2	1.032	28.2, 32.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.898	1.443	-1.93, 3.73	0.537
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.502	0.830	-1.12, 2.13	0.561
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.296	1.310	-2.27, 2.86	0.826
	Pseudo R square	0.012
ras_willingness	(Intercept)	12.3	0.442	11.4, 13.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.032	0.617	-1.18, 1.24	0.958
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.594	0.636	-1.84, 0.652	0.374
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.830	1.000	-1.13, 2.79	0.427
	Pseudo R square	0.011
ras_goal	(Intercept)	17.6	0.685	16.2, 18.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.201	0.958	-1.68, 2.08	0.835
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.109	0.749	-1.36, 1.58	0.888
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.13	1.180	-3.45, 1.18	0.360
	Pseudo R square	0.007
ras_reliance	(Intercept)	13.2	0.681	11.9, 14.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.398	0.952	-1.47, 2.27	0.678
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.030	0.472	-0.894, 0.954	0.951
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.653	0.745	-0.806, 2.11	0.404
	Pseudo R square	0.009
ras_domination	(Intercept)	11.0	0.500	9.97, 11.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.54	0.699	-2.91, -0.174	0.032
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.962	0.997	-2.92, 0.991	0.345
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	2.57	1.548	-0.469, 5.60	0.110
	Pseudo R square	0.095
symptom	(Intercept)	28.9	2.246	24.5, 33.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.60	3.140	-4.56, 7.75	0.614
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.22	2.164	-5.46, 3.02	0.587
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.957	3.413	-5.73, 7.65	0.786
	Pseudo R square	0.009
slof_work	(Intercept)	23.4	1.095	21.3, 25.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.883	1.530	-3.88, 2.12	0.567
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.55	0.614	-2.75, -0.347	0.035
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.991	0.969	-0.909, 2.89	0.336
	Pseudo R square	0.013
slof_relationship	(Intercept)	27.0	1.259	24.5, 29.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.23	1.760	-4.67, 2.22	0.490
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-2.59	0.901	-4.36, -0.825	0.020
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	3.63	1.423	0.836, 6.41	0.033
	Pseudo R square	0.022
satisfaction	(Intercept)	19.9	1.501	16.9, 22.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.69	2.098	-1.42, 6.80	0.207
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	2.80	1.115	0.611, 4.98	0.036
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.85	1.760	-5.30, 1.60	0.324
	Pseudo R square	0.041
mhc_emotional	(Intercept)	11.1	0.750	9.67, 12.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.857	1.049	-1.20, 2.91	0.418
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.44	1.313	-1.14, 4.01	0.308
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.649	2.054	-4.68, 3.38	0.760
	Pseudo R square	0.028
mhc_social	(Intercept)	15.2	1.143	13.0, 17.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.509	1.597	-3.64, 2.62	0.752
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	2.88	1.838	-0.728, 6.48	0.135
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-3.78	2.883	-9.43, 1.87	0.205
	Pseudo R square	0.043
mhc_psychological	(Intercept)	21.6	1.347	18.9, 24.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.38	1.883	-2.31, 5.07	0.466
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.76	2.351	-2.85, 6.36	0.468
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.50	3.678	-8.71, 5.71	0.690
	Pseudo R square	0.014
resilisnce	(Intercept)	16.9	1.034	14.8, 18.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.188	1.445	-2.64, 3.02	0.897
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.398	0.645	-0.866, 1.66	0.554
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.44	1.019	-4.43, -0.441	0.043
	Pseudo R square	0.013
social_provision	(Intercept)	13.4	0.733	12.0, 14.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.481	1.025	-1.53, 2.49	0.642
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.637	0.674	-1.96, 0.684	0.371
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.37	1.063	-0.714, 3.45	0.232
	Pseudo R square	0.018
els_value_living	(Intercept)	16.9	0.665	15.6, 18.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.552	0.929	-1.27, 2.37	0.556
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.26	0.753	-0.216, 2.74	0.131
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.50	1.187	-3.82, 0.831	0.241
	Pseudo R square	0.017
els_life_fulfill	(Intercept)	12.2	0.710	10.8, 13.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.72	0.993	-0.227, 3.66	0.091
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.48	0.759	-0.007, 2.97	0.086
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.62	1.197	-3.96, 0.729	0.213
	Pseudo R square	0.060
els	(Intercept)	29.0	1.240	26.6, 31.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.27	1.734	-1.13, 5.67	0.198
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	2.73	1.321	0.138, 5.32	0.071
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-3.14	2.083	-7.22, 0.948	0.169
	Pseudo R square	0.040
social_connect	(Intercept)	27.0	2.244	22.6, 31.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.411	3.137	-6.56, 5.74	0.896
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.78	1.792	-1.73, 5.29	0.349
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	2.56	2.829	-2.98, 8.11	0.391
	Pseudo R square	0.014
shs_agency	(Intercept)	13.7	1.067	11.6, 15.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.922	1.492	-2.00, 3.85	0.540
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.61	0.953	-0.262, 3.47	0.130
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.10	1.504	-5.05, 0.844	0.198
	Pseudo R square	0.013
shs_pathway	(Intercept)	16.2	0.804	14.6, 17.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.991	1.123	-1.21, 3.19	0.383
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.988	0.764	-0.508, 2.48	0.232
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.11	1.205	-3.47, 1.25	0.385
	Pseudo R square	0.017
shs	(Intercept)	29.9	1.736	26.5, 33.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.91	2.427	-2.84, 6.67	0.435
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	2.45	1.301	-0.100, 5.00	0.096
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-3.29	2.055	-7.32, 0.736	0.147
	Pseudo R square	0.015
esteem	(Intercept)	12.7	0.268	12.1, 13.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.348	0.375	-1.08, 0.386	0.357
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.00	0.529	-0.037, 2.04	0.081
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.994	0.822	-2.61, 0.618	0.246
	Pseudo R square	0.103
mlq_search	(Intercept)	15.2	0.762	13.7, 16.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.037	1.065	-2.05, 2.12	0.973
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.769	1.489	-2.15, 3.69	0.613
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.95	2.317	-6.49, 2.59	0.411
	Pseudo R square	0.014
mlq_presence	(Intercept)	14.1	0.893	12.4, 15.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.916	1.249	-3.36, 1.53	0.468
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.251	0.551	-0.830, 1.33	0.660
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.18	0.871	-3.89, -0.473	0.036
	Pseudo R square	0.038
mlq	(Intercept)	29.3	1.537	26.3, 32.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.879	2.149	-5.09, 3.33	0.685
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.906	1.924	-2.86, 4.68	0.649
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-4.66	3.029	-10.6, 1.28	0.156
	Pseudo R square	0.033
empower	(Intercept)	20.1	0.950	18.2, 22.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.277	1.328	-2.88, 2.33	0.836
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.092	0.517	-1.11, 0.922	0.863
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.825	0.817	-2.43, 0.777	0.342
	Pseudo R square	0.005
ismi_resistance	(Intercept)	15.0	0.581	13.8, 16.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.043	0.812	-1.63, 1.55	0.958
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.591	0.891	-2.34, 1.16	0.525
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.853	1.398	-1.89, 3.59	0.557
	Pseudo R square	0.006
ismi_discrimation	(Intercept)	12.0	0.664	10.7, 13.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.59	0.928	-3.41, 0.228	0.094
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.29	0.819	-2.89, 0.320	0.148
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.08	1.290	-1.45, 3.61	0.421
	Pseudo R square	0.061
sss_affective	(Intercept)	9.95	0.929	8.13, 11.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.907	1.298	-3.45, 1.64	0.489
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.058	0.624	-1.16, 1.28	0.928
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.641	0.986	-2.57, 1.29	0.533
	Pseudo R square	0.015
sss_behavior	(Intercept)	10.2	0.955	8.32, 12.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.37	1.335	-3.99, 1.24	0.310
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.52	1.067	-3.61, 0.572	0.190
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.19	1.681	-2.10, 4.49	0.497
	Pseudo R square	0.026
sss_cognitive	(Intercept)	7.48	0.891	5.73, 9.22
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.569	1.245	-1.87, 3.01	0.650
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.56	0.931	-0.266, 3.38	0.131
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.61	1.468	-5.48, 0.271	0.112
	Pseudo R square	0.017
sss	(Intercept)	27.6	2.599	22.5, 32.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.71	3.634	-8.83, 5.41	0.640
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.081	2.001	-4.00, 3.84	0.969
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.28	3.160	-7.47, 4.92	0.697
	Pseudo R square	0.007
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is weak (conditional R2 = 0.10) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.38 (95% CI [2.87, 3.90], t(47) = 12.84, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.84], t(47) = 0.32, p = 0.746; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.70])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.86], t(47) = 1.41, p = 0.157; Std. beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.55])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.96, 1.38], t(47) = -0.34, p = 0.731; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.63, 1.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.87) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.63e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.43 (95% CI [17.28, 19.58], t(47) = 31.41, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-1.67, 1.54], t(47) = -0.08, p = 0.937; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.60])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.71, 0.46], t(47) = -1.13, p = 0.260; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.18])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.87, 2.55], t(47) = 0.96, p = 0.335; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.00])

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.24 (95% CI [28.22, 32.26], t(47) = 29.30, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-1.93, 3.73], t(47) = 0.62, p = 0.534; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.78])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-1.12, 2.13], t(47) = 0.60, p = 0.545; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.45])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-2.27, 2.86], t(47) = 0.23, p = 0.821; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.60])

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.29 (95% CI [11.42, 13.15], t(47) = 27.82, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.18, 1.24], t(47) = 0.05, p = 0.958; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.62])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.84, 0.65], t(47) = -0.93, p = 0.350; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.33])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-1.13, 2.79], t(47) = 0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.40])

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.02e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.57 (95% CI [16.23, 18.91], t(47) = 25.64, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-1.68, 2.08], t(47) = 0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.68])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-1.36, 1.58], t(47) = 0.15, p = 0.885; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.52])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.13, 95% CI [-3.45, 1.18], t(47) = -0.96, p = 0.336; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.13, 0.39])

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.48e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.24 (95% CI [11.90, 14.57], t(47) = 19.43, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-1.47, 2.27], t(47) = 0.42, p = 0.676; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.71])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.95], t(47) = 0.06, p = 0.949; Std. beta = 9.43e-03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.81, 2.11], t(47) = 0.88, p = 0.380; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.66])

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.28) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.09. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.95 (95% CI [9.97, 11.93], t(47) = 21.91, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.54, 95% CI [-2.91, -0.17], t(47) = -2.21, p = 0.027; Std. beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-1.23, -0.07])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.96, 95% CI [-2.92, 0.99], t(47) = -0.97, p = 0.334; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.24, 0.42])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.57, 95% CI [-0.47, 5.60], t(47) = 1.66, p = 0.098; Std. beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.20, 2.37])

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.26e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.86 (95% CI [24.45, 33.26], t(47) = 12.85, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.60, 95% CI [-4.56, 7.75], t(47) = 0.51, p = 0.611; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.78])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-5.46, 3.02], t(47) = -0.57, p = 0.572; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-5.73, 7.65], t(47) = 0.28, p = 0.779; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.77])

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.95) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 23.43 (95% CI [21.28, 25.57], t(47) = 21.40, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-3.88, 2.12], t(47) = -0.58, p = 0.564; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.45])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.55, 95% CI [-2.75, -0.35], t(47) = -2.53, p = 0.012; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.58, -0.07])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.91, 2.89], t(47) = 1.02, p = 0.307; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.61])

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.95 (95% CI [24.49, 29.42], t(47) = 21.41, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.23, 95% CI [-4.67, 2.22], t(47) = -0.70, p = 0.486; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.40])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.59, 95% CI [-4.36, -0.83], t(47) = -2.88, p = 0.004; Std. beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-0.78, -0.15])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.63, 95% CI [0.84, 6.41], t(47) = 2.55, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.65, 95% CI [0.15, 1.14])

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.86 (95% CI [16.92, 22.80], t(47) = 13.23, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.69, 95% CI [-1.42, 6.80], t(47) = 1.28, p = 0.200; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.00])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.80, 95% CI [0.61, 4.98], t(47) = 2.51, p = 0.012; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [0.09, 0.73])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.85, 95% CI [-5.30, 1.60], t(47) = -1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.23])

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.14 (95% CI [9.67, 12.61], t(47) = 14.86, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-1.20, 2.91], t(47) = 0.82, p = 0.414; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.85])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.44, 95% CI [-1.14, 4.01], t(47) = 1.09, p = 0.274; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.18])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-4.68, 3.38], t(47) = -0.32, p = 0.752; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.37, 0.99])

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.19 (95% CI [12.95, 17.43], t(47) = 13.29, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-3.64, 2.62], t(47) = -0.32, p = 0.750; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.49])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.88, 95% CI [-0.73, 6.48], t(47) = 1.56, p = 0.118; Std. beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.20])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.78, 95% CI [-9.43, 1.87], t(47) = -1.31, p = 0.189; Std. beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-1.75, 0.35])

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.57 (95% CI [18.93, 24.21], t(47) = 16.01, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.38, 95% CI [-2.31, 5.07], t(47) = 0.73, p = 0.463; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.84])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.76, 95% CI [-2.85, 6.36], t(47) = 0.75, p = 0.455; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.05])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.50, 95% CI [-8.71, 5.71], t(47) = -0.41, p = 0.683; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.44, 0.94])

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.86 (95% CI [14.83, 18.88], t(47) = 16.31, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-2.64, 3.02], t(47) = 0.13, p = 0.896; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.68])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.87, 1.66], t(47) = 0.62, p = 0.537; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.37])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.44, 95% CI [-4.43, -0.44], t(47) = -2.39, p = 0.017; Std. beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-0.99, -0.10])

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.88) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.43 (95% CI [11.99, 14.87], t(47) = 18.32, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-1.53, 2.49], t(47) = 0.47, p = 0.639; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.76])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.96, 0.68], t(47) = -0.94, p = 0.345; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.21])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.71, 3.45], t(47) = 1.29, p = 0.198; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.05])

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.86 (95% CI [15.55, 18.16], t(47) = 25.37, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-1.27, 2.37], t(47) = 0.59, p = 0.552; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.81])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.26, 95% CI [-0.22, 2.74], t(47) = 1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.93])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.50, 95% CI [-3.82, 0.83], t(47) = -1.26, p = 0.208; Std. beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.30, 0.28])

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.19 (95% CI [10.80, 13.58], t(47) = 17.17, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.72, 95% CI [-0.23, 3.66], t(47) = 1.73, p = 0.083; Std. beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.12])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.48, 95% CI [-6.51e-03, 2.97], t(47) = 1.95, p = 0.051; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-2.00e-03, 0.91])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.62, 95% CI [-3.96, 0.73], t(47) = -1.35, p = 0.177; Std. beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-1.22, 0.22])

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.05 (95% CI [26.62, 31.48], t(47) = 23.42, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.27, 95% CI [-1.13, 5.67], t(47) = 1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.01])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.73, 95% CI [0.14, 5.32], t(47) = 2.06, p = 0.039; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [0.02, 0.95])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.14, 95% CI [-7.22, 0.95], t(47) = -1.51, p = 0.132; Std. beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-1.28, 0.17])

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.05 (95% CI [22.65, 31.45], t(47) = 12.05, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-6.56, 5.74], t(47) = -0.13, p = 0.896; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.59])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.78, 95% CI [-1.73, 5.29], t(47) = 0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.54])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.56, 95% CI [-2.98, 8.11], t(47) = 0.91, p = 0.365; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.83])

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.88) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.71 (95% CI [11.62, 15.81], t(47) = 12.85, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-2.00, 3.85], t(47) = 0.62, p = 0.537; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.81])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.61, 95% CI [-0.26, 3.47], t(47) = 1.68, p = 0.092; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.73])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.10, 95% CI [-5.05, 0.84], t(47) = -1.40, p = 0.162; Std. beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.07, 0.18])

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.87) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.19 (95% CI [14.62, 17.77], t(47) = 20.15, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-1.21, 3.19], t(47) = 0.88, p = 0.378; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.90])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.48], t(47) = 1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.70])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.11, 95% CI [-3.47, 1.25], t(47) = -0.92, p = 0.358; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.98, 0.36])

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.90 (95% CI [26.50, 33.31], t(47) = 17.23, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.91, 95% CI [-2.84, 6.67], t(47) = 0.79, p = 0.430; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.87])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.45, 95% CI [-0.10, 5.00], t(47) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.65])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.29, 95% CI [-7.32, 0.74], t(47) = -1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.10])

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.31) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.67 (95% CI [12.14, 13.19], t(47) = 47.28, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.39], t(47) = -0.93, p = 0.352; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.31])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.04, 2.04], t(47) = 1.89, p = 0.059; Std. beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.62])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.99, 95% CI [-2.61, 0.62], t(47) = -1.21, p = 0.227; Std. beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-2.07, 0.49])

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.27) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.19 (95% CI [13.70, 16.68], t(47) = 19.95, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-2.05, 2.12], t(47) = 0.03, p = 0.972; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.62])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-2.15, 3.69], t(47) = 0.52, p = 0.606; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.63, 1.08])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.95, 95% CI [-6.49, 2.59], t(47) = -0.84, p = 0.400; Std. beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.91, 0.76])

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.95) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.14 (95% CI [12.39, 15.89], t(47) = 15.83, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.92, 95% CI [-3.36, 1.53], t(47) = -0.73, p = 0.464; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.38])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.33], t(47) = 0.46, p = 0.649; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.33])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.18, 95% CI [-3.89, -0.47], t(47) = -2.50, p = 0.012; Std. beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-0.96, -0.12])

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.33 (95% CI [26.32, 32.35], t(47) = 19.08, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-5.09, 3.33], t(47) = -0.41, p = 0.683; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.48])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-2.86, 4.68], t(47) = 0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.68])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -4.66, 95% CI [-10.60, 1.28], t(47) = -1.54, p = 0.124; Std. beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-1.54, 0.19])

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.96) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.10 (95% CI [18.23, 21.96], t(47) = 21.16, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-2.88, 2.33], t(47) = -0.21, p = 0.835; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.58])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.92], t(47) = -0.18, p = 0.859; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.82, 95% CI [-2.43, 0.78], t(47) = -1.01, p = 0.313; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.19])

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.62e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.95 (95% CI [13.81, 16.09], t(47) = 25.75, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.63, 1.55], t(47) = -0.05, p = 0.957; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.60])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-2.34, 1.16], t(47) = -0.66, p = 0.507; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.45])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-1.89, 3.59], t(47) = 0.61, p = 0.542; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.73, 1.39])

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.00 (95% CI [10.70, 13.30], t(47) = 18.07, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.59, 95% CI [-3.41, 0.23], t(47) = -1.71, p = 0.087; Std. beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.07])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-2.89, 0.32], t(47) = -1.57, p = 0.117; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.10])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-1.45, 3.61], t(47) = 0.84, p = 0.402; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.15])

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [8.13, 11.77], t(47) = 10.72, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.91, 95% CI [-3.45, 1.64], t(47) = -0.70, p = 0.485; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.38])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.16, 1.28], t(47) = 0.09, p = 0.926; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-2.57, 1.29], t(47) = -0.65, p = 0.515; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.30])

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.19 (95% CI [8.32, 12.06], t(47) = 10.67, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.37, 95% CI [-3.99, 1.24], t(47) = -1.03, p = 0.304; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.29])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.52, 95% CI [-3.61, 0.57], t(47) = -1.42, p = 0.154; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.13])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [-2.10, 4.49], t(47) = 0.71, p = 0.478; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.03])

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 7.48 (95% CI [5.73, 9.22], t(47) = 8.39, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.87, 3.01], t(47) = 0.46, p = 0.648; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.75])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.56, 95% CI [-0.27, 3.38], t(47) = 1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.84])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.61, 95% CI [-5.48, 0.27], t(47) = -1.78, p = 0.076; Std. beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-1.36, 0.07])

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.28e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.62 (95% CI [22.52, 32.71], t(47) = 10.62, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.71, 95% CI [-8.83, 5.41], t(47) = -0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.46])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-4.00, 3.84], t(47) = -0.04, p = 0.968; Std. beta = -6.87e-03, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.32])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.28, 95% CI [-7.47, 4.92], t(47) = -0.40, p = 0.687; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.41])

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome	model	npar	AIC	BIC	logLik	deviance	Chisq	Df	p
recovery_stage_a	null	3	174.797	180.708	-84.398	168.797
recovery_stage_a	random	6	178.093	189.914	-83.046	166.093	2.704	3	0.439
recovery_stage_b	null	3	244.648	250.558	-119.324	238.648
recovery_stage_b	random	6	249.085	260.907	-118.543	237.085	1.562	3	0.668
ras_confidence	null	3	301.292	307.203	-147.646	295.292
ras_confidence	random	6	305.815	317.637	-146.908	293.815	1.477	3	0.688
ras_willingness	null	3	222.247	228.158	-108.123	216.247
ras_willingness	random	6	227.090	238.912	-107.545	215.090	1.157	3	0.763
ras_goal	null	3	263.871	269.781	-128.935	257.871
ras_goal	random	6	268.401	280.223	-128.201	256.401	1.469	3	0.689
ras_reliance	null	3	254.629	260.540	-124.315	248.629
ras_reliance	random	6	258.827	270.649	-123.414	246.827	1.802	3	0.615
ras_domination	null	3	245.477	251.388	-119.739	239.477
ras_domination	random	6	245.654	257.475	-116.827	233.654	5.824	3	0.121
symptom	null	3	386.438	392.349	-190.219	380.438
symptom	random	6	391.783	403.605	-189.892	379.783	0.654	3	0.884
slof_work	null	3	304.818	310.729	-149.409	298.818
slof_work	random	6	304.906	316.728	-146.453	292.906	5.912	3	0.116
slof_relationship	null	3	325.951	331.862	-159.976	319.951
slof_relationship	random	6	324.571	336.392	-156.285	312.571	7.380	3	0.061
satisfaction	null	3	345.826	351.737	-169.913	339.826
satisfaction	random	6	343.922	355.743	-165.961	331.922	7.904	3	0.048
mhc_emotional	null	3	282.631	288.542	-138.316	276.631
mhc_emotional	random	6	286.690	298.512	-137.345	274.690	1.941	3	0.585
mhc_social	null	3	327.222	333.133	-160.611	321.222
mhc_social	random	6	329.922	341.744	-158.961	317.922	3.300	3	0.348
mhc_psychological	null	3	343.743	349.654	-168.871	337.743
mhc_psychological	random	6	348.754	360.575	-168.377	336.754	0.989	3	0.804
resilisnce	null	3	300.790	306.701	-147.395	294.790
resilisnce	random	6	300.971	312.792	-144.485	288.971	5.819	3	0.121
social_provision	null	3	268.491	274.402	-131.245	262.491
social_provision	random	6	272.179	284.000	-130.089	260.179	2.312	3	0.510
els_value_living	null	3	263.075	268.986	-128.538	257.075
els_value_living	random	6	265.859	277.681	-126.930	253.859	3.216	3	0.359
els_life_fulfill	null	3	272.082	277.993	-133.041	266.082
els_life_fulfill	random	6	271.752	283.574	-129.876	259.752	6.330	3	0.097
els	null	3	330.448	336.358	-162.224	324.448
els	random	6	330.804	342.626	-159.402	318.804	5.643	3	0.130
social_connect	null	3	386.014	391.925	-190.007	380.014
social_connect	random	6	387.992	399.814	-187.996	375.992	4.022	3	0.259
shs_agency	null	3	308.865	314.776	-151.433	302.865
shs_agency	random	6	311.404	323.226	-149.702	299.404	3.461	3	0.326
shs_pathway	null	3	279.037	284.948	-136.518	273.037
shs_pathway	random	6	282.553	294.375	-135.276	270.553	2.484	3	0.478
shs	null	3	357.934	363.845	-175.967	351.934
shs	random	6	359.549	371.371	-173.775	347.549	4.385	3	0.223
esteem	null	3	179.558	185.469	-86.779	173.558
esteem	random	6	179.415	191.237	-83.708	167.415	6.143	3	0.105
mlq_search	null	3	284.879	290.790	-139.440	278.879
mlq_search	random	6	290.028	301.850	-139.014	278.028	0.851	3	0.837
mlq_presence	null	3	287.176	293.087	-140.588	281.176
mlq_presence	random	6	285.283	297.105	-136.642	273.283	7.893	3	0.048
mlq	null	3	353.992	359.903	-173.996	347.992
mlq	random	6	356.657	368.479	-172.328	344.657	3.335	3	0.343
empower	null	3	285.672	291.583	-139.836	279.672
empower	random	6	289.277	301.099	-138.639	277.277	2.395	3	0.495
ismi_resistance	null	3	251.880	257.791	-122.940	245.880
ismi_resistance	random	6	257.254	269.076	-122.627	245.254	0.626	3	0.890
ismi_discrimation	null	3	266.520	272.431	-130.260	260.520
ismi_discrimation	random	6	267.403	279.225	-127.702	255.403	5.117	3	0.163
sss_affective	null	3	286.241	292.152	-140.121	280.241
sss_affective	random	6	291.071	302.892	-139.535	279.071	1.170	3	0.760
sss_behavior	null	3	301.121	307.032	-147.561	295.121
sss_behavior	random	6	304.016	315.838	-146.008	292.016	3.105	3	0.376
sss_cognitive	null	3	293.258	299.169	-143.629	287.258
sss_cognitive	random	6	295.322	307.144	-141.661	283.322	3.936	3	0.268
sss	null	3	397.417	403.328	-195.708	391.417
sss	random	6	402.870	414.692	-195.435	390.870	0.546	3	0.909

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome	time	control			treatment			between
outcome	time	n	estimate	within es	n	estimate	within es	p	es
recovery_stage_a	1st	21	3.38 ± 1.21		22	3.50 ± 1.21		0.748	-0.101
recovery_stage_a	2nd	6	4.16 ± 1.31	-0.664	4	3.99 ± 1.32	-0.415	0.839	0.148
recovery_stage_b	1st	21	18.43 ± 2.69		22	18.36 ± 2.69		0.937	0.066
recovery_stage_b	2nd	6	17.80 ± 1.85	0.635	4	18.58 ± 1.69	-0.222	0.497	-0.791
ras_confidence	1st	21	30.24 ± 4.73		22	31.14 ± 4.73		0.537	-0.614
ras_confidence	2nd	6	30.74 ± 3.06	-0.343	4	31.93 ± 2.74	-0.545	0.524	-0.816
ras_willingness	1st	21	12.29 ± 2.02		22	12.32 ± 2.02		0.958	-0.028
ras_willingness	2nd	6	11.69 ± 1.73	0.506	4	12.55 ± 1.68	-0.200	0.440	-0.734
ras_goal	1st	21	17.57 ± 3.14		22	17.77 ± 3.14		0.835	-0.150
ras_goal	2nd	6	17.68 ± 2.30	-0.081	4	16.75 ± 2.15	0.765	0.518	0.696
ras_reliance	1st	21	13.24 ± 3.12		22	13.64 ± 3.12		0.678	-0.482
ras_reliance	2nd	6	13.27 ± 1.94	-0.036	4	14.32 ± 1.70	-0.826	0.369	-1.271
ras_domination	1st	21	10.95 ± 2.29		22	9.41 ± 2.29		0.032	0.757
ras_domination	2nd	6	9.99 ± 2.43	0.472	4	11.01 ± 2.45	-0.787	0.521	-0.502
symptom	1st	21	28.86 ± 10.29		22	30.45 ± 10.29		0.614	-0.416
symptom	2nd	6	27.63 ± 7.12	0.318	4	30.19 ± 6.54	0.069	0.564	-0.665
slof_work	1st	21	23.43 ± 5.02		22	22.55 ± 5.02		0.567	0.824
slof_work	2nd	6	21.88 ± 2.97	1.446	4	21.99 ± 2.54	0.521	0.951	-0.101
slof_relationship	1st	21	26.95 ± 5.77		22	25.73 ± 5.77		0.490	0.774
slof_relationship	2nd	6	24.36 ± 3.61	1.638	4	26.76 ± 3.18	-0.653	0.274	-1.517
satisfaction	1st	21	19.86 ± 6.88		22	22.55 ± 6.88		0.207	-1.372
satisfaction	2nd	6	22.65 ± 4.35	-1.427	4	23.49 ± 3.84	-0.484	0.749	-0.430
mhc_emotional	1st	21	11.14 ± 3.44		22	12.00 ± 3.44		0.418	-0.338
mhc_emotional	2nd	6	12.58 ± 3.35	-0.567	4	12.79 ± 3.34	-0.311	0.924	-0.082
mhc_social	1st	21	15.19 ± 5.24		22	14.68 ± 5.24		0.752	0.147
mhc_social	2nd	6	18.07 ± 4.81	-0.829	4	13.77 ± 4.74	0.262	0.175	1.238
mhc_psychological	1st	21	21.57 ± 6.17		22	22.95 ± 6.17		0.466	-0.305
mhc_psychological	2nd	6	23.33 ± 6.00	-0.388	4	23.21 ± 5.97	-0.056	0.976	0.026
resilisnce	1st	21	16.86 ± 4.74		22	17.05 ± 4.74		0.897	-0.167
resilisnce	2nd	6	17.26 ± 2.87	-0.353	4	15.01 ± 2.48	1.807	0.193	1.993
social_provision	1st	21	13.43 ± 3.36		22	13.91 ± 3.36		0.642	-0.402
social_provision	2nd	6	12.79 ± 2.28	0.533	4	14.64 ± 2.08	-0.613	0.194	-1.549
els_value_living	1st	21	16.86 ± 3.05		22	17.41 ± 3.05		0.556	-0.408
els_value_living	2nd	6	18.12 ± 2.27	-0.932	4	17.17 ± 2.13	0.174	0.510	0.697
els_life_fulfill	1st	21	12.19 ± 3.25		22	13.91 ± 3.25		0.091	-1.265
els_life_fulfill	2nd	6	13.67 ± 2.36	-1.091	4	13.77 ± 2.20	0.100	0.945	-0.074
els	1st	21	29.05 ± 5.68		22	31.32 ± 5.68		0.197	-0.961
els	2nd	6	31.78 ± 4.11	-1.155	4	30.91 ± 3.83	0.172	0.737	0.366
social_connect	1st	21	27.05 ± 10.28		22	26.64 ± 10.28		0.896	0.130
social_connect	2nd	6	28.83 ± 6.65	-0.564	4	30.98 ± 5.93	-1.375	0.596	-0.682
shs_agency	1st	21	13.71 ± 4.89		22	14.64 ± 4.89		0.540	-0.547
shs_agency	2nd	6	15.32 ± 3.29	-0.952	4	14.14 ± 2.98	0.296	0.560	0.701
shs_pathway	1st	21	16.19 ± 3.68		22	17.18 ± 3.68		0.383	-0.731
shs_pathway	2nd	6	17.18 ± 2.53	-0.729	4	17.06 ± 2.32	0.087	0.942	0.085
shs	1st	21	29.90 ± 7.96		22	31.82 ± 7.96		0.435	-0.836
shs	2nd	6	32.36 ± 5.04	-1.071	4	30.98 ± 4.46	0.368	0.652	0.603
esteem	1st	21	12.67 ± 1.23		22	12.32 ± 1.23		0.357	0.324
esteem	2nd	6	13.67 ± 1.30	-0.930	4	12.32 ± 1.31	-0.006	0.118	1.249
mlq_search	1st	21	15.19 ± 3.49		22	15.23 ± 3.49		0.973	-0.012
mlq_search	2nd	6	15.96 ± 3.66	-0.255	4	14.05 ± 3.69	0.393	0.425	0.636
mlq_presence	1st	21	14.14 ± 4.09		22	13.23 ± 4.09		0.468	0.949
mlq_presence	2nd	6	14.39 ± 2.47	-0.260	4	11.30 ± 2.13	2.000	0.041	3.209
mlq	1st	21	29.33 ± 7.04		22	28.45 ± 7.04		0.685	0.252
mlq	2nd	6	30.24 ± 5.53	-0.260	4	24.70 ± 5.28	1.076	0.123	1.587
empower	1st	21	20.10 ± 4.35		22	19.82 ± 4.35		0.836	0.307
empower	2nd	6	20.00 ± 2.56	0.102	4	18.90 ± 2.18	1.016	0.470	1.221
ismi_resistance	1st	21	14.95 ± 2.66		22	14.91 ± 2.66		0.958	0.026
ismi_resistance	2nd	6	14.36 ± 2.37	0.355	4	15.17 ± 2.32	-0.158	0.597	-0.487
ismi_discrimation	1st	21	12.00 ± 3.04		22	10.41 ± 3.04		0.094	1.072
ismi_discrimation	2nd	6	10.71 ± 2.37	0.867	4	10.21 ± 2.26	0.137	0.735	0.343
sss_affective	1st	21	9.95 ± 4.26		22	9.05 ± 4.26		0.489	0.829
sss_affective	2nd	6	10.01 ± 2.62	-0.053	4	8.46 ± 2.29	0.533	0.328	1.416
sss_behavior	1st	21	10.19 ± 4.38		22	8.82 ± 4.38		0.310	0.717
sss_behavior	2nd	6	8.67 ± 3.24	0.793	4	8.49 ± 3.04	0.170	0.930	0.094
sss_cognitive	1st	21	7.48 ± 4.08		22	8.05 ± 4.08		0.650	-0.342
sss_cognitive	2nd	6	9.04 ± 2.93	-0.938	4	7.00 ± 2.72	0.630	0.270	1.225
sss	1st	21	27.62 ± 11.91		22	25.91 ± 11.91		0.640	0.485
sss	2nd	6	27.54 ± 7.61	0.023	4	24.55 ± 6.76	0.385	0.520	0.848

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(48.96) = 0.32, p = 0.748, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.86)

2st

t(48.38) = -0.20, p = 0.839, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.88 to 1.53)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(42.14) = -0.08, p = 0.937, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.72 to 1.59)

2st

t(31.56) = 0.69, p = 0.497, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (-1.53 to 3.08)

ras_confidence

1st

t(41.80) = 0.62, p = 0.537, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-2.01 to 3.81)

2st

t(36.96) = 0.64, p = 0.524, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (-2.56 to 4.95)

ras_willingness

1st

t(44.11) = 0.05, p = 0.958, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.28)

2st

t(24.15) = 0.79, p = 0.440, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-1.40 to 3.13)

ras_goal

1st

t(42.59) = 0.21, p = 0.835, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.73 to 2.13)

2st

t(27.49) = -0.65, p = 0.518, Cohen d = 0.70, 95% CI (-3.86 to 1.99)

ras_reliance

1st

t(41.58) = 0.42, p = 0.678, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-1.52 to 2.32)

2st

t(42.07) = 0.91, p = 0.369, Cohen d = -1.27, 95% CI (-1.29 to 3.39)

ras_domination

1st

t(48.33) = -2.21, p = 0.032, Cohen d = 0.76, 95% CI (-2.95 to -0.14)

2st

t(41.20) = 0.65, p = 0.521, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-2.16 to 4.21)

symptom

1st

t(42.19) = 0.51, p = 0.614, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-4.74 to 7.93)

2st

t(30.90) = 0.58, p = 0.564, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-6.37 to 11.48)

slof_work

1st

t(41.37) = -0.58, p = 0.567, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-3.97 to 2.21)

2st

t(47.24) = 0.06, p = 0.951, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-3.42 to 3.64)

slof_relationship

1st

t(41.62) = -0.70, p = 0.490, Cohen d = 0.77, 95% CI (-4.78 to 2.33)

2st

t(40.98) = 1.11, p = 0.274, Cohen d = -1.52, 95% CI (-1.97 to 6.78)

satisfaction

1st

t(41.68) = 1.28, p = 0.207, Cohen d = -1.37, 95% CI (-1.55 to 6.92)

2st

t(39.74) = 0.32, p = 0.749, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-4.45 to 6.13)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(46.24) = 0.82, p = 0.418, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.25 to 2.97)

2st

t(28.35) = 0.10, p = 0.924, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-4.21 to 4.62)

mhc_social

1st

t(45.16) = -0.32, p = 0.752, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-3.73 to 2.71)

2st

t(25.36) = -1.39, p = 0.175, Cohen d = 1.24, 95% CI (-10.63 to 2.05)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(46.19) = 0.73, p = 0.466, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-2.41 to 5.17)

2st

t(28.18) = -0.03, p = 0.976, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-8.03 to 7.79)

resilisnce

1st

t(41.47) = 0.13, p = 0.897, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-2.73 to 3.11)

2st

t(45.02) = -1.32, p = 0.193, Cohen d = 1.99, 95% CI (-5.68 to 1.18)

social_provision

1st

t(42.07) = 0.47, p = 0.642, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.59 to 2.55)

2st

t(32.38) = 1.33, p = 0.194, Cohen d = -1.55, 95% CI (-0.99 to 4.69)

els_value_living

1st

t(42.73) = 0.59, p = 0.556, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-1.32 to 2.43)

2st

t(26.69) = -0.67, p = 0.510, Cohen d = 0.70, 95% CI (-3.85 to 1.96)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(42.51) = 1.73, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -1.27, 95% CI (-0.28 to 3.72)

2st

t(28.00) = 0.07, p = 0.945, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.89 to 3.09)

els

1st

t(42.50) = 1.31, p = 0.197, Cohen d = -0.96, 95% CI (-1.23 to 5.77)

2st

t(28.10) = -0.34, p = 0.737, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-6.08 to 4.35)

social_connect

1st

t(41.79) = -0.13, p = 0.896, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-6.74 to 5.92)

2st

t(37.22) = 0.54, p = 0.596, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-5.99 to 10.30)

shs_agency

1st

t(42.01) = 0.62, p = 0.540, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-2.09 to 3.93)

2st

t(33.33) = -0.59, p = 0.560, Cohen d = 0.70, 95% CI (-5.26 to 2.90)

shs_pathway

1st

t(42.16) = 0.88, p = 0.383, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-1.28 to 3.26)

2st

t(31.32) = -0.07, p = 0.942, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-3.28 to 3.05)

shs

1st

t(41.69) = 0.79, p = 0.435, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (-2.99 to 6.81)

2st

t(39.42) = -0.45, p = 0.652, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-7.52 to 4.76)

esteem

1st

t(48.17) = -0.93, p = 0.357, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.40)

2st

t(39.67) = -1.60, p = 0.118, Cohen d = 1.25, 95% CI (-3.04 to 0.36)

mlq_search

1st

t(48.01) = 0.03, p = 0.973, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-2.10 to 2.18)

2st

t(38.31) = -0.81, p = 0.425, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-6.72 to 2.89)

mlq_presence

1st

t(41.46) = -0.73, p = 0.468, Cohen d = 0.95, 95% CI (-3.44 to 1.61)

2st

t(45.28) = -2.11, p = 0.041, Cohen d = 3.21, 95% CI (-6.05 to -0.14)

mlq

1st

t(43.19) = -0.41, p = 0.685, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-5.21 to 3.45)

2st

t(25.01) = -1.59, p = 0.123, Cohen d = 1.59, 95% CI (-12.69 to 1.62)

empower

1st

t(41.35) = -0.21, p = 0.836, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-2.96 to 2.40)

2st

t(47.68) = -0.73, p = 0.470, Cohen d = 1.22, 95% CI (-4.14 to 1.94)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(44.67) = -0.05, p = 0.958, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.68 to 1.59)

2st

t(24.57) = 0.54, p = 0.597, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-2.30 to 3.92)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(43.12) = -1.71, p = 0.094, Cohen d = 1.07, 95% CI (-3.46 to 0.28)

2st

t(25.20) = -0.34, p = 0.735, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-3.57 to 2.55)

sss_affective

1st

t(41.55) = -0.70, p = 0.489, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-3.53 to 1.71)

2st

t(42.98) = -0.99, p = 0.328, Cohen d = 1.42, 95% CI (-4.70 to 1.61)

sss_behavior

1st

t(42.67) = -1.03, p = 0.310, Cohen d = 0.72, 95% CI (-4.07 to 1.32)

2st

t(27.00) = -0.09, p = 0.930, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-4.31 to 3.95)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(42.44) = 0.46, p = 0.650, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.94 to 3.08)

2st

t(28.58) = -1.13, p = 0.270, Cohen d = 1.23, 95% CI (-5.74 to 1.67)

sss

1st

t(41.73) = -0.47, p = 0.640, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-9.05 to 5.63)

2st

t(38.49) = -0.65, p = 0.520, Cohen d = 0.85, 95% CI (-12.28 to 6.31)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(34.56) = 0.69, p = 0.988, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.94 to 1.92)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(9.02) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.77)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(8.70) = 0.78, p = 0.915, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-1.54 to 3.13)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(11.41) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.53 to 2.00)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(9.49) = -1.10, p = 0.597, Cohen d = 0.77, 95% CI (-3.12 to 1.07)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(8.50) = 1.18, p = 0.543, Cohen d = -0.83, 95% CI (-0.64 to 2.01)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(25.28) = 1.25, p = 0.445, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (-1.04 to 4.24)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(9.08) = -0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-6.33 to 5.80)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(8.31) = -0.74, p = 0.960, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-2.29 to 1.17)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(8.54) = 0.93, p = 0.756, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-1.50 to 3.57)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(8.58) = 0.69, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-2.19 to 4.08)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(15.64) = 0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-2.78 to 4.36)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(13.19) = -0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-5.96 to 4.14)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(15.51) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-6.14 to 6.65)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(8.40) = -2.57, p = 0.064, Cohen d = 1.81, 95% CI (-3.86 to -0.22)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(8.96) = 0.88, p = 0.807, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-1.16 to 2.62)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(9.65) = -0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-2.34 to 1.87)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(9.41) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-2.26 to 1.99)

els

1st vs 2st

t(9.39) = -0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-4.11 to 3.29)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(8.69) = 1.96, p = 0.165, Cohen d = -1.38, 95% CI (-0.69 to 9.38)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(8.90) = -0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-3.17 to 2.18)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(9.04) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.26 to 2.02)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(8.60) = -0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-4.50 to 2.82)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(23.99) = 0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.40 to 1.41)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(22.90) = -0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-5.15 to 2.78)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(8.39) = -2.84, p = 0.042, Cohen d = 2.00, 95% CI (-3.48 to -0.38)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(10.18) = -1.56, p = 0.300, Cohen d = 1.08, 95% CI (-9.11 to 1.61)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(8.30) = -1.44, p = 0.372, Cohen d = 1.02, 95% CI (-2.37 to 0.54)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(12.29) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-2.19 to 2.72)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(10.09) = -0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-2.49 to 2.08)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(8.47) = -0.76, p = 0.938, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-2.34 to 1.17)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(9.58) = -0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.31 to 2.66)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(9.33) = -0.90, p = 0.778, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-3.65 to 1.56)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(8.63) = -0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-6.99 to 4.27)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(27.90) = 1.32, p = 0.393, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.43 to 1.99)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(8.88) = -1.11, p = 0.591, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-1.90 to 0.65)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(8.61) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.41 to 2.41)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(10.86) = -0.90, p = 0.773, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-2.05 to 0.86)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(9.28) = 0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.61 to 1.83)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(8.43) = 0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.12)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(21.20) = -0.90, p = 0.752, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-3.17 to 1.25)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(8.93) = -0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-6.20 to 3.75)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(8.27) = -2.51, p = 0.071, Cohen d = 1.45, 95% CI (-2.96 to -0.14)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(8.47) = -2.85, p = 0.040, Cohen d = 1.64, 95% CI (-4.67 to -0.52)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(8.51) = 2.49, p = 0.072, Cohen d = -1.43, 95% CI (0.23 to 5.36)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(14.17) = 1.04, p = 0.634, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-1.53 to 4.40)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(12.28) = 1.50, p = 0.320, Cohen d = -0.83, 95% CI (-1.30 to 7.05)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(14.07) = 0.71, p = 0.980, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-3.56 to 7.07)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(8.34) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.88)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(8.83) = -0.93, p = 0.752, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-2.19 to 0.91)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(9.41) = 1.64, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (-0.47 to 2.99)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(9.21) = 1.92, p = 0.174, Cohen d = -1.09, 95% CI (-0.26 to 3.23)

els

1st vs 2st

t(9.20) = 2.03, p = 0.145, Cohen d = -1.15, 95% CI (-0.31 to 5.76)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(8.60) = 0.98, p = 0.705, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-2.34 to 5.90)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(8.77) = 1.66, p = 0.263, Cohen d = -0.95, 95% CI (-0.59 to 3.80)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(8.90) = 1.28, p = 0.469, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-0.77 to 2.74)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(8.52) = 1.87, p = 0.193, Cohen d = -1.07, 95% CI (-0.55 to 5.45)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(20.27) = 1.77, p = 0.183, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (-0.18 to 2.18)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(19.50) = 0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-2.55 to 4.09)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(8.34) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.52)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(9.85) = 0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-3.50 to 5.31)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(8.26) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.10)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(11.57) = -0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.62 to 1.44)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(9.78) = -1.53, p = 0.315, Cohen d = 0.87, 95% CI (-3.16 to 0.59)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(8.40) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.38 to 1.50)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(9.35) = -1.40, p = 0.390, Cohen d = 0.79, 95% CI (-3.97 to 0.93)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(9.14) = 1.65, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.94, 95% CI (-0.58 to 3.70)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(8.55) = -0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-4.69 to 4.53)

Pathway Summary

Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Measurement

Table

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Text

Likelihood ratio tests

Post hoc analysis

Table

Between group

Within treatment group

Within control group

Plot

Clinical significance